About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2 (some duplicates have been removed)
in the president's attitude, certainly in his approach to foreign policy. you'll recall from the beginning of administration, the word engagement was, in fact, a guidepost for how we were going to try to deal with adversaries as well as in terms of how you try to deal with resolving conflict. so, i think engagement as such is not new. there's als been a premise to that engagement. it's engagement without illusion. the president has looked at iran as a country that is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and he's made it clear his objective is to prevent that, not to live with it. his preferred approach is to resolve it through peaceful means, resolve it by engaging with iranians, getting ourselves and others to engage, but to get the iranians to change their objective. the end result may be preferably achieved through diplomacy but the implication is if diplomacy does not work, force may be likely. >> you listen to what the president said in terms of interpretation from israel, couple with what ma hud barack was saying, if that kind of back-channelling doesn't work. are we at odds with is
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2 (some duplicates have been removed)